Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin's Shared Ledger Technology: Money's New Operating System

forbes.com

51–60 of 98 posts

Re: Bitcoin's Shared Ledger Technology: Money's New Operating System

#51
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Gold had value 4000 years ago because it was rare enough that people could use it as a currency, not because it was a useful metal. Incidentally, it's not useful at all compared to steel, copper, aluminum, etc. hence its use in jewelry. 2. Gold has value today because some people are willing to buy it and some others are willing to sell it. I don't see how it couldn't be the same with Bitcoins (or anything for tha…

Of course gold has value due to its usefulness. Plenty of electrical equipment is gold-plated. Dentists fill teeth with gold. It has other industrial uses as well. The value of precious metals are solely due to their usefulness, extending usefulness to their aesthetic, decorative quality as well. The price reflects this over the medium and long term. Of course, an ounce of silver in 1979 and 1981 was $8 an ounce, but…

The industrial value of gold is far below its trade value.

And the value in jewelry is largely due to its perceived cost - otherwise any number of alloys that look the same would have just as astronomical cost. Just look at diamonds where nearly the whole retail value is based on de Beers marketing and industrial diamonds are in a different class.

Re: Bitcoin's Shared Ledger Technology: Money's New Operating System

#52

Bitcoin and blockchain enthusiasts have been claiming that bitcoin (or etherum) is going to take the world by storm any day now, yet all I ever see anywhere are big claims (revolutionizing payments, disrupting remittance, ending wars, freeing the people, destroying the banks etc, ad nauseam) with very little substance and lots of scams, frauds and dead-end ventures. Dark markets, internet gambling and a handful of ot…

It's very difficult to dispute your assertions that Bitcoin currently provides very little utility outside niche markets, that a lot of the investments being made are laughable, and that the shifting goalposts phenomenon is in full effect.

But remember, a lot of things we use the internet and mobile phones for today were envisioned and promised in the late 90s but failed to materialize in a practical, mainstream way until very recently, over a decade later.

Who knows what cryptocurrencies, or the concepts behind them, will mean in another 5, 10, or 20 years. Maybe nothing, maybe a lot. It's still too early to tell.

(I'm skeptical myself, especially in actual currency applications, but open minded.)

Re: Bitcoin's Shared Ledger Technology: Money's New Operating System

#53

Bitcoin and blockchain enthusiasts have been claiming that bitcoin (or etherum) is going to take the world by storm any day now, yet all I ever see anywhere are big claims (revolutionizing payments, disrupting remittance, ending wars, freeing the people, destroying the banks etc, ad nauseam) with very little substance and lots of scams, frauds and dead-end ventures. Dark markets, internet gambling and a handful of ot…

I like the following statement as a good way of explaining the slow adoption of BitCoin:

Bitcoin is growing 25% faster than the internet in its early years.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-growing-25-faster-internet-...

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/investment-dollars-bitcoin-to...

Re: Bitcoin's Shared Ledger Technology: Money's New Operating System

#54
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a tautological answer. When a Bitcoin was worth over 4 times its present value a number of months ago, the same answer could be given - "it's worth that because people will pay for that". I can give a rational answer for why commodities like apples have value, or a gallon of gasoline, or a table, or a shirt. Even houses in 2007 real estate development projects in the outskirts of Sacramento have a rational (if…

I suspect you're being deliberately ignorant to why Bitcoin, a fixed quantity commodity that is immune to counterfeiting, has value. You're confounding physical utility and symbolic value. I don't have a problem with Bitcoin becoming a wild success or another case of Tulip Mania. I do have a problem with your feigned ignorance just so you can maintain your initial position. You're doing yourself a disservice for life…

> I suspect you're being deliberately ignorant to why Bitcoin, a fixed quantity commodity that is immune to counterfeiting, has value

A word in your sentence contains the answer to your statement. Commodity. I do not think Bitcoin is a commodity. Commodities are what I can go down to the store and buy - apples, flashlights. Maybe go to another store and buy a bar of gold. All of these things are useful. Precious metals like gold even have properties which allow them to be good currencies (portable, divisible, durable, uniform...) Bitcoins are not like these commodities - they are not consumed! Commodities are.

> You're confounding physical utility and symbolic value

I would not want to conflate the idea of arbitrary utility and the standard price and exchange value of a commodity. Obviously they are different - as someone else alluded to, an apple has more utility to someone who is very hungry than someone who is not.

> There's no shame in understanding a concept more and discarding misconceptions.

As I said earlier - I said right here on HN back when Bitcoin's price was twice what it is now that Bitcoin's price would crash to $0. That is what "maintaining my initial position" is. So far my prediction has been going in the direction I envisaged! Who should be understanding concepts more and discarding misconceptions, me who knew Bitcoins would lose half their value, or those who were hyping it back then?

Re: Bitcoin's Shared Ledger Technology: Money's New Operating System

#55

Bitcoin and blockchain enthusiasts have been claiming that bitcoin (or etherum) is going to take the world by storm any day now, yet all I ever see anywhere are big claims (revolutionizing payments, disrupting remittance, ending wars, freeing the people, destroying the banks etc, ad nauseam) with very little substance and lots of scams, frauds and dead-end ventures. Dark markets, internet gambling and a handful of ot…

I like the following statement as a good way of explaining the slow adoption of BitCoin: Bitcoin is growing 25% faster than the internet in its early years. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-growing-25-faster-internet-... http://insidebitcoins.com/news/investment-dollars-bitcoin-to...

1996 wasn't the Internet's early years.

Raising more venture capital in non-inflation adjusted terms, is not the same as growing faster. Those are completely different concepts. Also, adjust that for almost 20 years of inflation, and it's half as much. Not to mention that figure only includes a portion of the total VC raised by Internet companies in 1996, it's intentionally misleading in just about every way possible.

Even comparing the VC raised, in inflation adjusted terms, would be comically simplistic. What were interest rates in 1996?

Beyond that, Bitcoin better grow drastically faster than the Web in 1996: bitcoin gets to ride on top of trillions in investment having already been made into infrastructure and computing. Even if it were true that it's only growing 25% faster than the Web in 1996, I'd say it's moving too slow by a factor of x200.

Imagine the laugh we'd be having, if you were to say that the iPhone today was only 25% larger than the Palm Pilot after seven years on the market, despite all the market / infrastructure / Internet advantages that the iPhone gets to enjoy today.

Re: Bitcoin's Shared Ledger Technology: Money's New Operating System

#56
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course gold has value due to its usefulness. Plenty of electrical equipment is gold-plated. Dentists fill teeth with gold. It has other industrial uses as well. The value of precious metals are solely due to their usefulness, extending usefulness to their aesthetic, decorative quality as well. The price reflects this over the medium and long term. Of course, an ounce of silver in 1979 and 1981 was $8 an ounce, but…

The industrial value of gold is far below its trade value. And the value in jewelry is largely due to its perceived cost - otherwise any number of alloys that look the same would have just as astronomical cost. Just look at diamonds where nearly the whole retail value is based on de Beers marketing and industrial diamonds are in a different class.

> The industrial value of gold is far below its trade value

Huh? Don't supply and demand meet at price? Isn't that mainstream economic theory?

If the price of gold went over its industrial value, or electrical coating value, or value as a tooth filling - then, as mainstream economic theory goes, demand falls as the price rises. The fact that wire manufacturers, dentists, industry etc. buy gold shows that it is trading at its proper value - when they want to use it.

Yes, the price of gold or any commodity can go above its real value for a short period of time, even for a few years. Eventually it always goes back to its utility price though.

> de Beers

I don't disagree that monopolies can fix prices for years, even decades. We can throw in Verizon/AT&T prices for mobile or land lines. Electrical companies. And so on. Yes, monopolies do throw off prices and values.

Re: Bitcoin's Shared Ledger Technology: Money's New Operating System

#57

Bitcoin and blockchain enthusiasts have been claiming that bitcoin (or etherum) is going to take the world by storm any day now, yet all I ever see anywhere are big claims (revolutionizing payments, disrupting remittance, ending wars, freeing the people, destroying the banks etc, ad nauseam) with very little substance and lots of scams, frauds and dead-end ventures. Dark markets, internet gambling and a handful of ot…

> Of course, I'm probably just an idiot who doesn't "get" bitcoin

Two more "idiots" who don't get Bitcoin are Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger. Munger says Bitcoins are "rat poison". It's possible they're just old fuddy duddies who "don't get it". It's also possible that, both being born during or before Herbert Hoover's presidency, that they've had decades of experience sniffing out what's valuable and what's not.

Re: Bitcoin's Shared Ledger Technology: Money's New Operating System

#58
> By early 2014 the three had $4 million in seed funding and had narrowed their focus to Bitcoin apps. But they found that the software tools they needed to build those apps didn’t exist and pivoted to building the tools themselves.

> ON A MONDAY MORNING seven Chain.com employees sit in a circle on their Aeron chairs plotting the week’s plan of attack for various projects. The shoptalk is a jargon-fest of “open assets,” “confirmation time,” “UI,” “sidechains,” “federated chains” and, of course, “coins.” Khosla Ventures’ Rabois, the company’s lead VC investor, says he backed Chain.com because it had a nucleus of “10X engineers,” which he defines as “engineers who have the output and insight that’s ten times better than a regularly good engineer.” Elite groups like these, he says, are essential to build tools “so more regular engineers can build applications” for blockchain.

In The Industry, how common is investing $4 million in a company before they have even "narrowed their focus to Bitcoin apps," based on the unproven potential of the founders? What am I missing?

Re: Bitcoin's Shared Ledger Technology: Money's New Operating System

#59
post #57

Bitcoin and blockchain enthusiasts have been claiming that bitcoin (or etherum) is going to take the world by storm any day now, yet all I ever see anywhere are big claims (revolutionizing payments, disrupting remittance, ending wars, freeing the people, destroying the banks etc, ad nauseam) with very little substance and lots of scams, frauds and dead-end ventures. Dark markets, internet gambling and a handful of ot…

> Of course, I'm probably just an idiot who doesn't "get" bitcoin Two more "idiots" who don't get Bitcoin are Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger. Munger says Bitcoins are "rat poison". It's possible they're just old fuddy duddies who "don't get it". It's also possible that, both being born during or before Herbert Hoover's presidency, that they've had decades of experience sniffing out what's valuable and what's not.

what's valuable today, perhaps. Blockchain tech might surprise us all yet. I don't think the possibilities are overblown, just the timeline. It really is a financial solution for a different world then what we currently live in, and only extreme global circumstances can even come close the momentum needed to spark a change such as that in our financial system.

Re: Bitcoin's Shared Ledger Technology: Money's New Operating System

#60

Bitcoin and blockchain enthusiasts have been claiming that bitcoin (or etherum) is going to take the world by storm any day now, yet all I ever see anywhere are big claims (revolutionizing payments, disrupting remittance, ending wars, freeing the people, destroying the banks etc, ad nauseam) with very little substance and lots of scams, frauds and dead-end ventures. Dark markets, internet gambling and a handful of ot…

You're not an idiot -- the things you described are very real. I've heard about tons of scams and quite a few dead-end ventures. The 21inc thing sounds pretty bizarre to me as well, but there is more going on in the bitcoin world than just that.

I'm involved with a VPS hosting company called ChunkHost, and we've accepted bitcoin for many years. We're not criminals, and we don't tolerate criminals on our network, and nonetheless bitcoin has served us well as a means of payment. We've written on our blog[1] about how bitcoin payments are 20-30% of our revenue.

Another interesting company is purse.io -- they let you get something like a 20% discount on your Amazon purchases by paying in bitcoin. coffee.foldapp.com lets you get 20% off your Starbucks purchases by paying with bitcoin. Again, this is not a scam -- I use it and it works. Don't you think this is a real benefit that real people could appreciate?

I'm curious how long you've been following bitcoin. I've been interested in it since 2009/2010, and have seen the goalposts move a great deal: every time a goal is reached, the critics change it so they can declare bitcoin a failure. First it was that "you can't buy anything for it," which was true until a pizza was sold for 10,000 bitcoins in mid-2010.

Then it was "no store accepts it" -- which was true until a few months later when you could buy things like web hosting from tiny bitcoin-only companies. Then it became "no large company will ever accept it." That remained true for a while, but eventually Wordpress became the first large company to do so. Others like Newegg, Overstock, and even Microsoft followed soon after. "Nobody will ever pay with it" was another one, and that was shattered once those companies started posting bitcoin revenue which, despite being a tiny share of their overall revenue, showed that people were consistently spending their coins.

I'm not saying that grandma will be buying gas with bitcoin anytime soon (or ever) -- just that there is substance there: merchants accepting it, consumers spending it, and interesting things like purse.io that couldn't exist without it.

[1] https://chunkhost.com/blog/17%2Fbitcoin_revenue_in_2014

Post reply on HN